Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ShumaGorath wrote:They seem to like asians though, which perplexes me.

It isn't that hard to understand really.

I think this just illustrates why direct democracies are a bit weaker than republics. In this case, it was a motion brought forward by the far right party, who mainly stay in the headlines by bringing up stuff like this. There is only minority support for their policies, but decisions are made by those who show up. I believe opinion polls beforehand pointed to the majority opposing a ban, but obviously on polling day most of those people couldn't be arsed showing up and the extremer elements did, and hey presto, wierd law that is not representative gives Switzerland an intolerant image.

sebster wrote:You are right that Switzerland, as a democracy (and note that Swiss government has a lot of direct democracy like California), has a right to change its constitution to include banning minarets. They've passed this law and now it will come into effect, as it should be. But you are wrong in assuming that because a majority of Swiss voters chose to ban minarets, that it was the result of some rights of the general population being infringed. People can perceive a threat to their rights where none exists. So yeah, this was democratic but that doesn't make it right - an immoral thing remains immoral even when lots of people support it.

The funny thing is that the Muslim hating Europeans are largely concerned that the Muslims will become too politically powerful, and use this to democratically infringe upon their rights.

So their plan is to use the fact that they're still more powerful for now to democratically infringe upon their rights first. I can't see how this could possibly backfire.


Also, for those saying it's purely an aesthetic/city planning issue, do you really think they would need to amend their nation's constitution to have a city prohibit the construction of tall, intrusive structures? I don't. It's about religion, not tall buildings.

Huzza for intoleranse! But back on topic. I don`t know what to make of this, sadfacr or careface. Anyways who gives a buring squig about a ban against ugly buldings, and to make it fair, ban churches an all other religious buildings.

Anshal wrote:Huzza for intoleranse! But back on topic. I don`t know what to make of this, sadfacr or careface. Anyways who gives a buring squig about a ban against ugly buldings, and to make it fair, ban churches an all other religious buildings.

You can't really denote "ugly" and "religious" as the same thing. Every building put up in the 70's and 80's would have to be torn down. Come to think of it, so would all those 600 year old houses that are ugly as sin too.

ShumaGorath wrote:

You can't really denote "ugly" and "religious" as the same thing. Every building put up in the 70's and 80's would have to be torn down.

Much as I disagree with Shuma on, well everything, this statement speaks to the right of it. on the positive if we did that it would get rid of the housing bubble no?

Agreed with this bit in the article:

"It's a sad day for freedom of religion," said Mohammed Shafiq, the chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a British youth organization. "A constitutional amendment that's targeted towards one religious community is discriminatory and abhorrent."

Tyranny by the majority at work here.

Maybe everyone says "minnaret" it makes all the Swiss think of 'Rock the Casba' like it does me and drives them nuts too?

Sharifffff don't like it. Rock the Casba, rock the Casba.

Frazzled wrote:Maybe everyone says "minnaret" it makes all the Swiss think of 'Rock the Casba' like it does me and drives them nuts too?

Sharifffff don't like it. Rock the Casba, rock the Casba.

They are tired of bracing for the high pitched guitar/synth squeal after "jet fighters".

I can't understand why people are getting so offended by this ? So they cant build a muslim temple tower in a non-muslim country , I couldn't go to the middle east and build a church . It seems fair to me .

IamAz wrote:I can't understand why people are getting so offended by this ? So they cant build a muslim temple tower in a non-muslim country , I couldn't go to the middle east and build a church . It seems fair to me .

Depends on the country in the middle east. You could in a significant number of them. The only one I can remember straight up disallowance is saudi arabia. Though I suppose I should probably note that you're basically saying it's ok to be intolerant because several active warzones and a religious caliphate are. I guess you're ok with death camps too, they do those in North Korea. And mass censorship, they love that in china.

He has a point though. Churches are effectively outlawed in most of the Middle East. It may not be on the books but they are outlawed nonetheless. Thats their purview, just like its the purview of Switzerland to make its own laws, and the US to be more open.

Makes us evil Americans look just a little better...

I'm not saying that but I see where they are coming from . In the uk , we have these ugly looking temples popping up everywhere . England is a christian country , There are more temples than churches , I'm sure thats not right somehow . Everyone in this country is afraid to upset the muslims , There's a guy at work who gets about 8 or 9 weeks off a year for a religious holiday , yet i have to work easter , christmas just like everyone else . So you can see why im a bit unbothered by this .

The point is that you CAN build churches in at least some Middle Eastern countries. And that it's not a good argument to say "well, such and such oppressive country has bad laws which forbid it, so it's fair for us to make such a law to forbid them to build their relgiious houses in our country". The point is that our way of life is supposed to ALLOW for religious freedom. If our way of life is really better, we can't exactly demonstrate that by following their example.

Hey Fraz, doesn't "outlawed" tend to mean there has to be a law involved?

Az, does that guy at your work really get more vacation/holiday time than you? Or is he taking some time off unpaid, or what? Maybe he just saves up his vacation time and uses it all at once for Ramadan. I know here in the States we can normally choose to take our vacation time off in small chunks or in one big long vacation.

IamAz wrote:I'm not saying that but I see where they are coming from . In the uk , we have these ugly looking temples popping up everywhere . England is a christian country , There are more temples than churches , I'm sure thats not right somehow . Everyone in this country is afraid to upset the muslims , There's a guy at work who gets about 8 or 9 weeks off a year for a religious holiday , yet i have to work easter , christmas just like everyone else . So you can see why im a bit unbothered by this .

You're still holding up the middle east as some sort of model to which you can compare too. Do you want to be a religious state? Do you enjoy working or going out on sundays? What's your stance on gay rights, abortion, pre marital sex, censorship, and arranged marriages? Sweden is suppose to have protections for freedom of religion, this is clearly a reactionary and racist policy that does little more than lash out at the muslim minority in the country because of ethnic tensions due to immigration (and regular old swiss racism). The U.K. is not a christian country, it's a secular country. Same with sweden. Also the jews have temples, the Muslims have mosques.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. When you claim to be a religious country then be one. Otherwise you're not, and you're just being unreasonably intolerant (oh noes, they might put up a fifth minaret in the country).

It doesnt work like that though , With religious freedom for other faiths , im losing my freedoms . If i was to go into work tomorrow and say "Hold on a second , The muslim kid is getting time off for a religious holiday so i want christmas off , He would probally laugh at me" but if i was a diffrent faith , they would have to let me otherwise they would be called racist or facist .

Mannahnin wrote:The point is that you CAN build churches in at least some Middle Eastern countries. And that it's not a good argument to say "well, such and such oppressive country has bad laws which forbid it, so it's fair for us to make such a law to forbid them to build their relgiious houses in our country". The point is that our way of life is supposed to ALLOW for religious freedom. If our way of life is really better, we can't exactly demonstrate that by following their example.

Does that guy at your work really get more vacation/holiday time than you? Or is he taking some time off unpaid, or what?

Having said that, I am not sure the Swiss believe thusly. They may not be about the religious freedom thing, to the extent of the US or UK. I don't know.

It doesnt work like that though , With religious freedom for other faiths , im losing my freedoms

Exactly how does that dude getting Ramadan off and a few minarets damage your freedom?

If i was to go into work tomorrow and say "Hold on a second , The muslim kid is getting time off for a religious holiday so i want christmas off , He would probally laugh at me" but if i was a diffrent faith , they would have to let me otherwise they would be called racist or facist .

You probably signed a clause in your employment contract that states that you work holidays when asked. It's why you have to check the little box that asks if you have reasons you could not work those dates. If you had filled in those boxes with some sort of religious reasoning they would not be able to use that to fire you, thats an important aspect of a religiously free state. It's not his fault you didn't read your own paperwork.

Please don't troll the thread with obvious nonsense.

There isn't a person in the country of any religion (or none) who works on Christmas Day except in vital industries like power, police and pubs, or if they volunteer.

No-one in the very large international megacorp where I work gets muslim or jewish holidays. They get the normal bank holidays and have to take their own holidays for Eid and so on.

All im saying is that I'm not a racist , I'm not a Facist . But in my country which is the UK , I am treated like a second class citizen because all of these immigrants and people of non-mainstream british faiths are given more rights due to the media turning people against anyone who says otherwise . If im unemployed or homeless , I would get nothing . If your foreign you get given a nice cushy house for you and the 30+ family members with benifits from taxpayers money . I'm not trying to be rude to other faiths or suggest that we should ban temples and mosques but there should be equal rights and the freedom of speech should actually mean what its supposed to mean !

I can't understand why people are getting so offended by this ? So they cant build a muslim temple tower in a non-muslim country , I couldn't go to the middle east and build a church . It seems fair to me .

Because in a secular country that wants to uphold the democratic freedoms and rights, you cannot take some of those rights and freedoms away from one particular group on a religious basis, and especially not on the argument that "they wouldn't let us do it in their country, so "pfft" to them". If your society and government wants to uphold democratic rights and freedoms, then those have to be applied to everyone, not "everyone, but the people we don't like". That's plain ol' intolerance, anyway you spin it.

Az, everything you're posting sounds like lies and politically inflammatory rhetoric.

It's like the British version of Fox news or something.

Do you consume a lot of Rupert Murdoch-owned news?

Well maybe you are all right but this is just they way i see it . Im telling you all one thing , There is no way i could build a church in most middle east countrys .

IamAz wrote:Well maybe you are all right but this is just they way i see it . Im telling you all one thing , There is no way i could build a church in most middle east countrys .

Indeed.

Yeah, but we think that is wrong right?

IamAz wrote:Well maybe you are all right but this is just they way i see it . Im telling you all one thing , There is no way i could build a church in most middle east countrys .

Yeah, you would need to get signatures, and materials, and then you would actually have to build it.

ShumaGorath wrote:

IamAz wrote:Well maybe you are all right but this is just they way i see it . Im telling you all one thing , There is no way i could build a church in most middle east countrys .

Yeah, you would need to get signatures, and materials, and then you would actually have to build it.

You wouldn't be able to build it or if you did you would be arrested the church burned down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:Yeah, but we think that is wrong right?

There's what i think they should do and what they have the right to do.

1. What I think-agree with you.
2. But I don't think one nation has the general right to tell another nation what to do unless it impacts their self interest.

The bottom line is that the Swiss people have voted on the matter and by a majority decided they don't want minarettes. They are not trying to ban Muslims, Mosques or Islam. Minarettes are not essential to the Muslim faith.

To those accusing Switzerland of being a racist country, well done for making a sweeping generalisation which ironicaly enough is racist in itself.

I am sure there are far right movements in Switzerland which jumped on this as a chance to further their own agendas. A bit like the BNP in Britain supporting a Labour or Conservative proposal. Just because there are ignorant people throwing their weight behind an idea doesn't automaticaly make it a bad idea.

Okay, agreed. But we can express disapproval. I'm hardly advocating regieme change in switzerland here mate


Automatically Appended Next Post:

squilverine wrote:The bottom line is that the Swiss people have voted on the matter and by a majority decided they don't want minarettes. They are not trying to ban Muslims, Mosques or Islam. Minarettes are not essential to the Muslim faith.

To those accusing Switzerland of being a racist country, well done for making a sweeping generalisation which ironicaly enough is racist in itself.

I am sure there are far right movements in Switzerland which jumped on this as a chance to further their own agendas. A bit like the BNP in Britain supporting a Labour or Conservative proposal. Just because there are ignorant people throwing their weight behind an idea doesn't automaticaly make it a bad idea.

It was put forward by a far right group who have a history of using issues like this to get themselves extra press.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

IamAz wrote:Well maybe you are all right but this is just they way i see it . Im telling you all one thing , There is no way i could build a church in most middle east countrys .

Yeah, you would need to get signatures, and materials, and then you would actually have to build it.

You wouldn't be able to build it or if you did you would be arrested the church burned down.

Please cite your source, and which countries you're talking about. So far (IIRC) we've got two countries specifically mentioned. Saudi Arabia definitely forbids it. Turkey allows it. IamAz is claiming "most", and you seem to be supporting that claim. Can you cite applicable laws to support it? I would tend to bet, and lay down $5 or a beer, that most Middle Eastern countries do in fact allow Christian churches to be built.